|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
you're discussing a few issues at once here, and you're wrong on most of them.
first of all, east asia in general is undertaking measures that could one day lead them to be economically separate from the US, or at least much less dependent. china, japan and south korea are moving towards some form of economic integration and the US is against this all the way because it would undermine their military and economic presence in the region. you might be right about korea's economy taking a major hit if the US left (though id like to hear noam chomsky's opinion on that), but i would be impressed w/ the resolve and democratic decision of the koreans if that happened. |
Not so , North East Asia has very little strategic value to the US any more.
| Quote: |
| the situation in korea is *not* burdensome to the US. "burden" is the entire reason they're here. they partly create the burden and feed off of it, in classic imperialist style. the north-south conflict justifies their military presence in south korea, like so many other hotspots in the world. |
Good cliches but no facts. I 'll take the F-22s thank you very much .
The US spends 20 Billion defending South Korea who can defend itself The US runs a big trade defict with Korea. It damn well is a burden to the US.
And have you seen the news ? the USA will spend another 11 B upgrading its forces in Korea.
| Quote: |
| why do you think the US wants such a big stake in the north nucelar issue? the US has never been a fan of the two koreas' attempts at reunification and "sunshine" policy. a united korea where the south unites w/ the north is a korea whose subservience to the US - embodied in the south - is diluted. a korea with no or very little military/ideological/political conflict is one where the US has no desire to be in. |
North Korea would sell nuclear weapons to the highest bidder that is why!
A unified Korea would be a big market to the states. You repeat cliche after cliche but you got nothing at all. You enjoy that SoJu I did not no it went so well with conspricy theory
and why is it that South Korea is all upset that the US is moving some soldiers away from the DMZ do you know why because no they have to spend more money on their own military.
South Korea spends 3% of its GNP on defense very little for a threatened country. The US presencein Korea makes it possible for Koreans to pay low taxes (and go to room cafes). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ohahakehte
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Not so , North East Asia has very little strategic value to the US any more.
|
you're wrong. on the economic front, north east asia is an absolute goldmine. china is america's manufacturing plant and south korea and japan are huge markets and centres of trade w/ the US. the north korean threat provides a huge opporunity for the US to keep bases and military power in south korea and japan. east asia is a major part of the world where the US feels it needs a military foothold. id like to know why you think ne.asia is no longer of strategic value.
| Quote: |
Good cliches but no facts. I 'll take the F-22s thank you very much . South Korea who can defend itself is not worth 20 Billion a year to the US. The US runs a big trade defict with Korea. It damn well is a burden to the US.
|
facts?! facts! *im* not providing facts? where are your facts!?
sure, its a burden to the US, a burden the US really doesnt see as a burden. much as it doesnt see its multi-billion dollar burden of israel as a burden. israel is a terrible watchdog for the US but the US continually invests disgusting amounts of money in israel's horrific and genocidal actions.
| Quote: |
North Korea would sell nuclear weapons to the highest bidder that is why!
|
n.korea is a horrific regime, but of all the talk about cliches, this takes the cake. did you know that as soon as all the talk erupted in the media about north korea's supposed nuclear weapons program that russia publicly doubted their capability for building nuclear weapons? russia said (and as n.korea's former communist ally they know what they're talking about) that north korea doesnt have the technological infrastructure, the money, or the nuclear physicists to build nuclear weapons. heres a link to the article that discusses russia's skepticism:
http://www.zmag.org/elich_korea.htm
under the subheading "Nuclear Frame-up and Imperial Arrogance" scroll down 4 paragraphs for the specifics on russia and s.korea's doubts.
| Quote: |
A unified Korea would be a big market to the states. You repeat cliche after cliche but you got nothing at all. You enjoy that SoJu.
|
yes, a unified korea would be a big market, a very big market to the US. but the military presence is in US eyes just as important as economic influence. and although ive never tried soju, i dont think id like it. too strong for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| you're wrong. on the economic front, north east asia is an absolute goldmine. china is america's manufacturing plant and south korea and japan are huge markets and centres of trade w/ the US. the north korean threat provides a huge opporunity for the US to keep bases and military power in south korea and japan. east asia is a major part of the world where the US feels it needs a military foothold. id like to know why you think ne.asia is no longer of strategic value. |
No- military value the US could trade with them all. What use are the bases in Korea? Explain what the US can do with land locked troops in Korea?
The US runs a trade defict with Japan, with China and with Korea.
Korea has no military utility to the US .
Almost everyone in the world thinks that North Korea has the abiltiy to build a sizable nuke force. And North Korea must be lying when they say they have the ability.
| Quote: |
| facts?! facts! *im* not providing facts? where are your facts!? |
Start here.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-49.html
Everyone in the world thinks that North Korea has the abiltiy to build a sizable nuke force. And North Korea must be lying when they say they have the ability. Okay
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-10-02-koreas-nuclear_x.htm
keep reading
russia publicly doubted their capability for building nuclear weapons? russia said (and as n.korea's former communist ally they know what they're talking about) that north korea doesnt have the technological infrastructure, the money, or the nuclear physicists to build nuclear weapons. heres a link to the article that discusses russia's skepticism:
http://www.zmag.org/elich_korea.htm [/quote][/quote]
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ma03nukenote.html
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/northkoreacrisis.htm
Former defense Sec Perry thinks NK has them.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_02/3654.html
| Quote: |
"
[
For all of these reasons, the North Korean nuclear program poses an unacceptable security risk," Perry said. "United States strategy should be designed to ensure that the present activities at Yongbyon do not reach the production stage. Clearly to achieve this objective without war will take an aggressive and a creative diplomatic strategy."
The former defense secretary warned that in a matter of weeks North Korea could use its fuel rods to produce enough weapons-grade |
russia publicly doubted their capability for building nuclear weapons? russia said (and as n.korea's former communist ally they know what they're talking about) that north korea doesnt have the technological infrastructure, the money, or the nuclear physicists to build nuclear weapons. heres a link to the article that discusses russia's skepticism:
http://www.zmag.org/elich_korea.htm [/quote]
plutonium for five bombs. Once the plutonium is reprocessed, Perry said, it could be moved anywhere, making it much more difficult subsequently to find and destroy. He said North Korea probably has two nuclear weapons, based on nuclear fuel concealed from the International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s"[/quote]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-49.html
| Quote: |
| under the subheading "Nuclear Frame-up and Imperial Arrogance" scroll down 4 paragraphs for the specifics on russia and s.korea's doubts |
.
Real objective stuff that Zmag is
| Quote: |
| yes, a unified korea would be a big market, a very big market to the US. but the military presence is in US eyes just as important as economic influence. and although ive never tried soju, i dont think id like it. too strong for me |
No there isn't. The land locked forces in Korea are of no use to the US . They would not help the US defend Taiwan. For one thing Korea would never allow them.
The bases in Japan do help the US. Naval bases are needed for a deep water navy. But the US does not have naval bases in Korea.
and the US does not really even have much strategic leverage in Korea either. Did you not hear ex korean president Kim Dae Jung siding with Russian president Putin on the issue of the ABM treaty.
Tell me how land locked forces in Korea help the US. They don't.
If the US wants to contain China it is better off with Stealth bombers and F-22s.
Which do you think China fears more US forces in Korea or Stealth Bombers (cut back because of lack of funds) F-22 ditto. or the Crusader artillery system (ditto) or Missile defense (ditto)
with the money the US spends defending Korea who can defend itself the US could have all these systems and more.
Korea has very little strategic value to the US if at all.
| Quote: |
Washington continues to maintain a large military presence in East Asia despite the collapse of Soviet communism and the growing strength of America's allies. Particularly dramatic is the transformation of the Korean peninsula, where the United States spends between $15 billion and $20 billion a year to defend South Korea, a nation fully capable of defending itself.
In the aftermath of World War II, America's global interventionist foreign policy appeared to have a purpose: containment of the hegemonic threat posed by the Soviet Union and its satellites. Today, however, there is nothing left to contain. America's enemies are a handful of dismal, impoverished dictatorships.'' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Fonzerelli
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Not so , North East Asia has very little strategic value to the US any more. |
hahahaha!!!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arthur Fonzerelli wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not so , North East Asia has very little strategic value to the US any more. |
hahahaha!!!!! |
Well tell me what kind utility does 37K land locked soldiers in Korea at a cost of 10- 20 Billion every year give the US?
Like I said if the US wants to threaten China the US is better off spending that money on more F-22s., or more B-2s or ... Every dollar that the US spends defending Korea is one dollar less that the US can use for force modernization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohahakehte
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dont you know about the "tripwire" function of american droops at the border? its so that if/when n.korea invades the americans will be among the first casualties, thereby guarunteeing US retaliation and major participation in a war. thats one use of american military presence in the south. another is the strategic function of having bases in an area close to official american enemies like n.korea and potential enemies like china and russia. its a foothold. in much the same way that since the balkan wars the US has set up permanent bases in the region so as to have a strategic military foothold. and in much the same way that although bush has said the occupation of iraq will end in june, i doubt they will abandon their military bases in iraq and kuwait.
yes, many people in the world believe north korea has nuclear capability. but that doesnt mean they're right. until only a few months ago, most americans believed that iraq was in bed w/ al-qaida, that saddam hussein was behind 9/11, that iraqi WMD had the potential of harming america, bla bla bla. it was all lies. what matters is what is true, not so much what people believe, especially war-mongering and imperialist americans.
i dont really care what someone like secretary perry thinks. he probably also believes all the crap about iraq being a menace to world peace. its an understatement to say that i take whatever the bush adminitration says with an enormous grain of salt. and i dont know if you read that zmag article or not, but it talks about how perry is a terrible diplomat when it comes to north korea and doesnt know the first thing about how to handle diplomacy. he traveled to pyongyang w/ no mandate to negotiate, only a mandate to scream at north koreans and tell them to fall in line.
its true what you say about the US not having as much strategic leverage as they'd like to have /w south korea. as you know the korean population is split on the issue of allegiance to the US, and the government of korea is no exception. but its very important for american policy, especially bush's foreign policy that there is not a united korea. a united korea undermines american strategy in containing, isolating and ultimately destroying the north korean regime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| dont you know about the "tripwire" function of american droops at the border? its so that if/when n.korea invades the americans will be among the first casualties, thereby guarunteeing US retaliation and major participation in a war |
So, the Americans keep troops in South Korea because they WANT to have casualties in the event of a war, so that they will be guaranteed to retaliate? That sounds a little strange. If the Americans want to retaliate, where is it written that they have to wait until American troops die? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Fonzerelli
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Arthur Fonzerelli wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not so , North East Asia has very little strategic value to the US any more. |
hahahaha!!!!! |
Well tell me what kind utility does 37K land locked soldiers in Korea at a cost of 10- 20 Billion every year give the US?
Like I said if the US wants to threaten China the US is better off spending that money on more F-22s., or more B-2s or ... Every dollar that the US spends defending Korea is one dollar less that the US can use for force modernization. |
the US is trying to open up markets in China...Having an american military presence reassures western companies that it will be safe to do business in China in the light of threats from North Korea...
China is no longer the enemy (more like the consumer or customer)...NK is the the main reason US forces are here and having a base of operations in SK gives the US military a niceley located (and strategic) base of operations for Northeast asia...
also keeping US forces in Korea keeps american defense contractors/services in business.... that means thousands of people in the USA get to keep their jobs making those fighter planes you mentioned... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arthur Fonzerelli wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Arthur Fonzerelli wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not so , North East Asia has very little strategic value to the US any more. |
hahahaha!!!!! |
Well tell me what kind utility does 37K land locked soldiers in Korea at a cost of 10- 20 Billion every year give the US?
Like I said if the US wants to threaten China the US is better off spending that money on more F-22s., or more B-2s or ... Every dollar that the US spends defending Korea is one dollar less that the US can use for force modernization. |
the US is trying to open up markets in China...Having an american military presence reassures western companies that it will be safe to do business in China in the light of threats from North Korea...
China is no longer the enemy (more like the consumer or customer)...NK is the the main reason US forces are here and having a base of operations in SK gives the US military a niceley located (and strategic) base of operations for Northeast asia...
also keeping US forces in Korea keeps american defense contractors/services in business.... that means thousands of people in the USA get to keep their jobs making those fighter planes you mentioned... |
But South Korea who has a 400 + Billion dollar GNP could become much more powerful than N Korea with a less than 20 Billion GNP if South Korea decided to.
Base of strategic operations in North East Asia- for what mission? To deter Kubla Khan from invading Japan? Al Qadia is in South East Asia (Indonesia & the PI ) not North East Asia.
Keeping US forces in Korea does not mean jobs for American defense contractors. South Korea only buys a little more than one billion in arms from the US every year but the US spends much more than that - between 10 & 20 Billion defending South Korea.
As I said before each dollar the US spends defending Korea is one dollar less that the US has for force improvments- from missile defense to pilotless aircraft to F-22's to Orbital bombers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Fonzerelli
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Base of strategic operations in North East Asia- for what mission? To deter Kubla Khan from invading Japan? Al Qadia is in South East Asia (Indonesia & the PI ) not North East Asia. |
To keep NK (a nuclear threat) in check.
| Quote: |
| Keeping US forces in Korea does not mean jobs for American defense contractors. South Korea only buys a little more than one billion in arms from the US every year but the US spends much more than that - between 10 & 20 Billion defending South Korea. |
But the US government awards huge contracts to American defense contractors.. The thousands of workers who work for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other defense contractors are the ones that benefit from this... If USFK pulled completely out of Korea next week, thousands of people in the Pacific Northwest (USA) would be out of work... War or the threat of war is good for the economy. World War II helped get the US out of the Great depression....
| Quote: |
| As I said before each dollar the US spends defending Korea is one dollar less that the US has for force improvments- from missile defense to pilotless aircraft to F-22's to Orbital bombers |
Do you think the US is here for "altruistic" reasons?? The US presence in Korea is a strategic military operation to keep NK (and formerly the Soviet Union, China, and Japan decades ago) under control and to deter agression from them....
Also, China/Korea/Japan is an untapped market for western corporations...The US military presence in korea reassures western investments in Northeast Asia.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [To keep NK (a nuclear threat) in check. |
Knock down the Dae Poh dong 3 with missile defense. And Stealth bombers scare North Korea more than 37,000 US soldiers do. That is not enough to invade North Korea, and there is nothing in North Korea to invade for.
| Quote: |
| But the US government awards huge contracts to American defense contractors.. The thousands of workers who work for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other defense contractors are the ones that benefit from this... If USFK pulled completely out of Korea next week, thousands of people in the Pacific Northwest (USA) would be out of work... War or the threat of war is good for the economy. World War II helped get the US out of the Great depression.... |
Again spend the money of the F-22 Raptor which was cut. Spend it on more B-2 bombers also cut. keeping soldiers in Korea is good for the Korean economy - not the US economy.
the US is in Korea because of intertia. That is why the US will start moving the soldiers back and would like them almost all out but then Korea will start crying to the US congress like they did when Jimmy Carter wanted to take the soldiers out. Why do you think Korea will send 3000 soldiers (and eventually it will be more like 5000 ) despite all the public opposition. to Iraq because they have such a good thing here and they don't want lose it.
South Korea can handle the North Korean threat if it wants to but instead it gets the US to do it for them. It has 20 but more like 30 times the economic power of N Korea.
And lets not forget that the US runs a huge trade deficit with Korea.
Korea has no military value anymore.
From Stratfor.Biz
| Quote: |
| U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will represent the United States at the United Nations again on Feb. 14. The early reports are that he will directly challenge the motives of France and Germany in opposing war, charging them with using the inspection issue as a cover while in reality trying to protect Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The rumors clearly are intended to let the French and Germans know that they are now at the break point with the United States over Iraq. In other words, if they intend to change their position, tomorrow is going to be the day to start doing it, or the United States is going to say some things in public that cannot be taken back. Washington has been signaling not only France and Germany, but South Korea as well, that it does not regard the relationships with these countries as critical to U.S. national security. In other words, if they want to push the issue to the wall, then Washington is prepared to withdraw troops where they are stationed and completely redefine the relationship. |
| Quote: |
| Rumsfeld's discussions with Japanese defense officials are likely to focus on SDF deployments to Iraq, the transfer of anti-missile technologies and possibly the removal of some forces from Japan. According to a May 29 report in the Los Angeles Times, the Pentagon plans to move military forces currently deployed in Japan and South Korea to smaller bases in the region, including 5,000 U.S. Marines assigned to Okinawa to an Australian army base. The U.S. military presence on the Japanese island - where some servicemen have been charged with crimes such as rape - long has been a contentious issue. A reduction in the number of U.S. personnel in Okinawa would help to alleviate some tension, and the forces could be redeployed closer to hotspots in Southeast Asia. |
| Quote: |
Roh is not the first to discuss a potential decrease in U.S. troop strength in Korea; the issue has been raised several times in the half-century since the end of the Korean War. In early 2000, South Korea's Defense Ministry issued a report calling for a gradual buildup of troops and materiel in preparation for a withdrawal of Washington's 37,000 troops.
And as recently as September 2002, a report by the Unification Ministry went so far as to publicly put a price of $30 billion on replacing the U.S. forces. Of that total, $14 billion -- the equivalent of the yearly South Korean defense budget -- would cover the replacement of U.S. equipment and logistics.
The reality of replacing the U.S. forces entails much more than simply building a bigger army or buying more tanks. Although South Korea's 690,000-strong military could provide a credible defense against North Korea's million-man army, Seoul lacks three key elements of defense that Washington currently provides: satellite and other intelligence imagery, long-range strike capabilities and a strategic deterrent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's visit to South Korea this past week should be seen for what it really was, an early step in a long, gradual disengagement of U.S. land forces from Korea and a greater reliance on sea power to maintain an American security posture in Asia.
As he flew through Northeast Asia, Rumsfeld sprinkled clues about the future of U.S. military dispositions there even as he reaffirmed the American treaty commitments to South Korea and Japan. Other U.S. officials explained what the hints meant.
A primary reason for pulling back from South Korea is that the U.S. needs the 17,000 soldiers of the Second Infantry Division elsewhere. As Rumsfeld and military leaders have said repeatedly, U.S. forces are stretched thin. The U.S. Army has only 10 divisions and cannot afford to have one tied, down in Korea.
Related to that need has been the refusal of South Korea to send a division of 12,000 soldiers to secure a sector in Iraq, as requested by the U.S. Instead, Seoul will post only 3,000, and that will include the 700 already there.
Moreover, anti-Americanism is so widespread that moving American troops out of Seoul and positions north of the capital will ease tensions only slightly. In a discussion of South Korea and North Korea, an American officer said, only half joking, "Sometimes I wonder which one is really our adversary."
Despite superficial agreement, President George Bush of the United States and President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea disagree on how to dissuade North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. The U.S. president advocates a firm approach while the South Korean leader would be more accommodating.
Thus, over the next five years the U.S. will shift most of the 7,000 people in its headquarters in Seoul out of the city. The U.S. will move the Second Division into posts south of Seoul near airfields. Those soldiers will prepare for swift strikes in contingencies elsewhere in Asia. The 37,000 troops in Korea today will be cut to an undecided number.
Why five years? That would have changes made before the end of the second Bush administration, assuming President Bush is re-elected next November.
In addition, the United Nations headquarters, in Korea since the Korean War of 1950-53, will probably be disbanded. The Combined Forces Command, which gives the U.S. operational control over Korean troops, will be dissolved and authority returned to the South Korean government; those controls have long irritated nationalistic Koreans.
Finally, the position of the four-star U.S. Army general, who today commands the UN mission, the Combined Forces Command and U.S. troops, will be abolished in favor of a lower ranking commander. The four-star flag may be moved to the headquarters of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, as many senior Army officers have advocated.
Rumsfeld's clues: On the way to Guam, he told the traveling press that the Pentagon has been reviewing "our force deployments and stationings." He said: "We're now at a stage where we can begin discussing that with our allies and with Congress."
Aboard the Navy command ship Blue Ridge in Yokosuka, Japan, Rumsfeld said: "I think those of you who are serving in the Navy are going to see the responsibilities of the United States Navy increase generally, and increase particularly here."
Addressing Americans in Okinawa, the defense secretary said: "We've got to continue to pull down deployments." He said some overseas deployments would continue but added: "Once they do that job they ought not to be there any longer than they need to be there." American troops have been in South Korea since the Korean War.
At a press conference in Seoul, after meeting the defense minister of South Korea, Cho Young-kil, Rumsfeld said: "I have assured the minister that any changes to U.S. military posture in Northeast Asia will be the product of the closest consultation with our key allies. Most important, they will result in increased U.S. capabilities in the region."
Rumsfeld said those adjustments "will reflect the new technologies that are available, the new capabilities, and they will strengthen our ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat any aggressions against allies such as South Korea."
After meeting President Roh, Rumsfeld said the president had asserted that his nation "could become more self-reliant. I agree with that." He said the same thing in a meeting with American troops at Osan Air Base.
Translation: South Korea is capable of defending itself and U.S. forces are needed elsewhere.
Richard Halloran, a former New York Times foreign correspondent in Asia and military correspondent in Washington, D.C., writes from Honolulu. - Ed.
By Richard Halloran |
2003.11.21 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
